City of
Beverly Hills Documents(and Information)
Beverly Hills, pop.
34,000, is 8 miles west of downtown Los
Angeles.

It may be possible to completely ignore a Beverly
Hills ticket !

1. The Los Angeles County Superior Court does
not report ignored red light camera tickets to the
DMV. More info is in "Countywide Information,"
which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA
County Documents page.

2. If your "ticket" does not
have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it
is a fake ticket, which I call a "Snitch Ticket."
For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the
Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket
page.

Yes, this is the webpage with a LOT of info
about tickets from the red light cameras in
Beverly Hills.

But first, this important political announcement
...

Vote No on Sheila Kuehl

Do you live in LA County? Was
Zev Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor? (Until
Nov. 2014, he represented the Third District, which
includes the central and western San Fernando Valley,
Malibu, Santa Monica, Venice, Beverly Hills, the City
of West Hollywood, and part of Hollywood.)

Zev "termed out," and in the Nov. 4, 2014 election,
Sheila Kuehl won the race to succeed him, by a narrow
margin.

Sheila "Kuehl Cams" Kuehl, in 2007

During her career in the California
Legislature, Kuehl made three attempts to pass bills to
allow the use of automated speed enforcement (photo
radar) in California.

As an LA County Supervisor, she has a seat
on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to
continue and expand Metro's huge (101 cameras, so
far) red light camera system.
She also voted to put an additional LA County-wide
sales tax, to go to Metro, on the Nov. 2016 ballot -
and it passed. (See Measure M
on the Action/Legis page, for more about that tax.)
Kuehl may be up for re-election in 2022.

It's rare for a city's local paper to
be critical of a city's actions, but on May 22, 2015 the
Beverly Hills Courier described the City as having "a
sour reputation as a red-light camera speed trap...."

( ) indicates a footnote.(1)
Annual total, provided by City.
(2) These annual totals and projections are by
highwayrobbery.net. Projections are
based upon the data shown in the table
above. In the 2015 and later annual
totals or projections, the upper number is
Possible Violations.
(3) Un-used columns are to allow for
later expansion of City's system.
(4) Monthly average for the year
indicated.
(5) From the Monthly Traffic Reports
filed with the City's Traffic and Parking
Commission, available at the City's
website. These figures appear to include
warning tickets.
(6) Monthly camera-by-camera data was
requested on 4-9-18 and received on 6-18-18.

(7) For the Xerox cameras
beginning in 2015, the top number, in red, is "Events," the
second number (not having a suffix) is
"Possible Violations," and the last figure is
"Violations Mailed" (not including warnings).
In each Xerox camera's early
months, TS=test shots, W=warning letters
issued.

For the camera systems before 2015, any
figures in red type (or, if you are looking at
this table in black and white, the upper
figure
when there are two or more figures in a
cell) are what RedFlex called Total
Violations, or all incidents
recorded by the cameras, and due to time
limitations may have been posted here only for
selected
intersections or months. If there
is sufficient public interest, the remaining
intersections and/or months will be
posted. The
figures in black type are what ACS (the
city's camera supplier until 2007) calls
Citations Issued and
RedFlex (the supplier between 2008 and 2014)
calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum
of genuine
citations issued (those filed with the court)
plus any Nominations mailed (not filed
with
the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).

(8) The RedFlex camera
enforcement was believed to be on traffic on
the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east,
west, thru, left, right) shown here may be
incorrect..
(9) One of these camera codes (Cam #)
will appear in the data bar above or near the
photos on your ticket.
(10) The direction of enforcement shown for
the Xerox cameras (north, south, east, west)
shown here is believed to be correct.
(11) Intersection-by-intersection data
for this month has not been posted in the
table, but is available
at one of the links just below the table.
(12) Data for this month has not yet
been requested.
(13) Listen to the YouTube video about
Wilshire/Whittier, in Set # 4, below.
(14) New cameras started June 2015 - See
Set # 3, below.
(15) New cameras started in May 2016 -
See Set # 3, below.
(16) Coldwater Canyon connects to
Beverly Drive, then to this intersection.
(17) For more info about monthly
revenue, see Set # 5, below.(18) From the
annual
reports required, beginning with 2013,
by CVC 21455.5(i). They become available
by the Fall of the
following calendar year. As of 2018 the
City was asking ACS/Xerox/Conduent to produce
the reports for 2015, 2016 and 2017.
(19) If you have a ticket from this
camera, please be sure to contact me!
(20) Per the official reports (linked
above) cameras 6093 and 6094 operated for only
eight days in April 2018 and nine days in May
2018.

Beverly
Hills
Docs Set # 2"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late
Times, etc., for all of its cameras.
These graphs track violations recorded, not
tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late
Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed
to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the
highest lane number.)

In Sept. 2012 the City extended
the 2007
contract to Oct. 2013. The City
did not negotiate a lower price, so paid
approx. $277,000 too much for the year.
See FAQ # 17. The report submitted for
the extension revealed that they made a net
profit of nearly $1 million during the
previous year.

Invoices
received in July 2013 showed (and again in
July 2014) show that the City continued to pay
$5870 per camera, per month.

In Aug. 2013 the city manager extended the
contract to Oct. 14, 2014.

The 2014 Contract - Expanding, and Then
Expanding More

At their Oct. 7, 2014 meeting the City Council
approved 4 - 1 a staff
recommendation to extend the program
for five more years, to replace RedFlex with
Xerox/ACS, and to add six more cameras.
(Safer Streets LA did a study
of the proposed new cameras, and found them to
be unwarranted.)

The selection of
Xerox/ACS over RedFlex supposedly was
due to Xerox' bid ($638,880 per year)
being lower than RedFlex' ($792,000).

The new
contract says that the City will pay
Xerox $3694 per month for each of the cameras
the company will install at the locations
formerly covered by RedFlex cameras.

Strangely, the City put the contract out to
bid without first making an attempt to
negotiate with RedFlex. Had they
negotiated with RedFlex they should have been
able to obtain the same pricing as that
negotiated by another RedFlex client, Elk
Grove, California, whose March 2014 contract
for its five camera system includes this
pricing table.

A complete copy of the Elk Grove
contract is available on the Elk Grove Docs
page.

Did RedFlex accidentally
run over the Beverly Hills city hall
mascot, or something?

When I applied the Elk Grove
pricing and terms to Beverly Hills, I got
this:

Just looking at the rent over five years,
without the adjustments highwayrobbery.net
suggests for loyalty, etc. and the cost of the
transition, RedFlex would have been cheaper by
$370,080. And with Xerox the City has
taken on a large cancellation fee while the
typical RedFlex renewal contract - like Elk
Grove's - allows cancellation with no fee.

To cover the $370,080
extra rent, Beverly Hills will need to issue
an extra 4112 tickets (the City's
fine revenue averaged $90 for each ticket it
issued, in 2013).

A Jan. 20, 2015 Beverly Hills Courier article
said that the Xerox cameras would be in
operation by mid-February 2015. A later
article said that operation would begin in
June - and it did. That additional
four-month delay in re-starting the cameras
brought highwayrobbery.net's estimate of the
revenue lost during the transition to
$800,000.

2016: Expanding More

On May 3, 2016 the 30-day warning period began
for new cameras at Olympic and Beverly Drive.
This list of contracts
and amendments may not be up-to-date - there
could be a contract or amendment later than
the one listed above.

Beverly Hills
Docs Set # 4Info About Wilshire/Whittier

In
Oct. 2013 Channel 4 KNBC did a story
about Jay Beeber's report
on the short yellow at Wilshire
and Whittier and its effect on the
number of tickets.

The rightmost column in the Set #
1 table, above, shows the monthly
red light camera ticket fine
revenue the City has received from
the court. The Revenue
Spreadsheet on the LA
County Docs page shows the
revenue received by all red light
camera cities in LA County.

Beverly Hills Docs Set #
6More Coming

There may be some more Beverly
Hills information posted
soon. Mark your calendar to
remind you to come back here and
look!